[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement

[Noah]

Hi Mike

Majority of LIR are in a position to provide IP transit circuits services
to a small startup WISP which through the transit service can also enjoy
sub-allocations of /24 or more at no cost beyond the IPT service.

I dont see why a small startup WISP would prefer brokers or IPv4 leasers to
an LIR.!

Noah


On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 00:47 Mike Burns, <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

> Hi Noah,
>
>
>
> Thanks for  your thoughts, my replies are inline.
>
>
>
> “Transfers are generally a prerogative of brokers who don't necessarily
> provide any form of network services. It does make sense for a broker to
> defend this model.”
>
>
>
> Noah that is a meaningless ad hominem, every transfer has a recipient.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> “ What happens in RIPE does not have to trickle down to ARIN or any other
> region for that matter.”
>
>
>
> Correct, but we can use the evidence provided by RIPE in predicting the
> outcome of this policy. You predicted that RIRs would no longer be needed
> and I offered RIPE’s continued existence as rebuttal. Your turn, or have
> you abandoned your objection that this policy would lead to RIR irrelevance?
>
>
>
> Opposing this policy means the only lessors are the lucky incumbents.
>
>
>
> “How so, last I checked, as an LIR, we continue to sub-allocate/assign
> every end-user we bring online through every circuit.  For end-users who
> need more than we can sub-allocate, we refer them to the RIR for such
> needs. The RIR system has in place policies that have worked for decades so
> well to the best interest of the community and the internet as we know it.”
>
>
>
> It means that the only leasing allowed under ARIN policy today is when
> current address owners lease their addresses. Does that make my assertion
> clearer? Do you still deny my assertion?
>
>
>
> Opposing this policy means a lack of policy is preferred, despite the open
> practice of leasing.
>
>
>
> “There is already a policy. What do you mean lack of policy yet there is
> already a policy which has worked well until you folks want to now remove
> the need for a circuit so that those of you who benefit from the no circuit
> based service of IPv$ can expand the scope of your business model beyond
> just RIPE and provide IPv4 a much longer lifeline.”
>
>
>
> There is no ARIN policy regarding leasing, that is what I meant by my
> assertion. So ARIN resource holder are free to lease out their space. By
> rejecting this proposal you wish to maintain an NRPM with no lease policy
> at all. I mean that’s okay, but I think it’s asking for problems.
>
> Opposing this policy provides incentive for registry-shopping and address
> outflow.
>
>
>
> “What registry shopping. The widely known practise has always been RIR <>
> LIR <> END-USER. This has worked and continues too.”
>
>
>
> Yes, this might not be clear. Companies who wish to lease address space
> can purchase RIPE space for this purpose even if they don’t have an
> immediate need on an operational network. So that increases demand for RIPE
> space over ARIN space and provides an incentive for addresses to flow, over
> time, to RIPE because addresses will flow to where the need is. This would
> be a long term issue, but we should be aware that address owners do have
> options in their choice of RIR, and policies favorable to owners will
> provide a lure. There are already significant leasing operations based in
> RIPE, drawing in addresses that could otherwise feed the local transfer
> market. In their absence addresses can flow into RIPE from other RIRs.
>
>
>
> Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool and drives up lease rates.
>
>
>
> “If your business model is to profit from leasing and not the IP related
> services which include connectivity, then yes. LIR who focus on providing
> services and using integers as a means to do so, dont worry much about
> lease rates since 99% LIR businesses are not those of IPv4 brokerage or
> leasing with no service.”
>
>
>
> I am simply pointing out that prices rise when supply dips and vice versa.
> By artificially limiting the pool of lessors to those who have already
> received addresses they are not using, you limit the competitiveness of the
> lease offers and this naturally leads to higher prices. It would be better
> for consumers if there were more and not less lessors, as cumbersome as
> that sounds.
>
>
>
> Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes accurate registration.
>
>
>
> “99% of LIR business models are such that LIR's provide IP related
> services that require a numbered circuit. Majority of LIR around the world
> follow this school of thought.
>
>
>
> Only a handful of profit minded IPv4 brokers and those who subscribe to
> the IPv4 leasing business model; are into this flawed draft policy whose
> aim is to profit off limited IPv4 addresses without necessarily providing
> Internet based services.
>
>
>
> Worse of it is that, we have experienced purported LIR running an IPv$
> enterprise without offering any circuit based service. The entity's annual
> membership contribution to the RIR is hardly $15K yet holds millions of
> IPv4 addresses it hoards so that it can go about leasing them for
> significant figures of $30 per IPv4 address.
>
>
>
> Noah”
>
>
>
> Please leave your AFRINIC issues outside this discussion, as we  have no
> free pool here to raid. And also your ad hominems about brokers. My point
> is that by requiring lessors to register leases as assignments if they want
> to use them as justification, we are providing an incentive for accurate
> registration that currently does not exist.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210922/96e0d3c8/attachment.htm>